============================ Appeal 3300a ============================
Panelist: Machiavelli
Decision: REMIT
Panelist: ais523
Decision: REMIT
Panelist: omd
Decision: REMIT
========================================================================
History:
Appeal initiated: 28 Apr 2013 20:40:57 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli (panelist): 05 May 2013 19:39:49 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist): 05 May 2013 19:39:49 GMT
Assigned to omd (panelist): 05 May 2013 19:39:49 GMT
Machiavelli moves to REMIT: 05 May 2013 21:33:54 GMT
ais523 moves to REMIT: 11 May 2013 05:50:41 GMT
omd moves to REMIT: 12 May 2013 22:01:05 GMT
Final decision (REMIT): 12 May 2013 22:01:05 GMT
========================================================================
Panelist Machiavelli's Arguments:
I opine REMIT without prejudice on 3300a. While Judge Walker's
arguments are reasonable, I think there is serious doubt that the
"Golemness" of a rule (if it can be changed persistently) is not a
substantive aspect of the rule. In particular, Golemness is certainly
an aspect of a rule, and it certainly affects (although not directly)
the overall *behavior* of the rule, if not actually directly affecting
the rule's internal operation. In addition, I don't think there is any
place in the rules where a non-substantive aspect of a higher-powered
instrument is modified in order to achieve a significant effect;
perhaps we could safely say that a "substantive aspect" of an
instrument is an aspect that ultimately has some effect on the
instrument's overall behavior.
And I certainly think that doing such things as turning rules into
Slave Golems is something that ought to be impossible below the power
of the affected rule.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments by Machiavelli:
Oh, and REMIT instead of REMAND because I'd like to see a fresh
perspective on the issue.
========================================================================
Panelist ais523's Arguments:
I opine REMIT with prejudice on the appeal of CFJ 3300.
The issues here are quite potentially major, and simply accepting the
caller's arguments isn't good enough when there are important arguments
on both sides. I personally think that the correct judgement is FALSE; a
low-powered rule can't define a high-powered rule to be a distributed
proposal, so why can it define it to be a specific sort of person, when
there's already a rule specifically preventing rules defining things as
people? That makes about as much sense as getting around a prohibition
on defining something as an asset (not that it exists yet) by defining
it as a currency instead.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
I think a low-powered rule would (at the time the CFJ was called) have
been capable of creating new Slave Golems out of thin air, because
they're not trying to define a new class of entity, they're creating
objects in a class that already exists. I don't think it could redefine
existing entities to be Slave Golems, though, because that's expanding
the definition of what a Golem is to include more sorts of entity than
it did previously, and thus effectively redefining "person", which is
secured. (Grey area: a low-powered rule redefining existing people, such
as first-class people, to be Slave Golems.)
========================================================================
Panelist omd's Arguments:
I strongly disagree with fellow panelist ais523's argument for FALSE, as I
expressed in my gratuitous arguments to the original case, but I too
would like additional clarity and hopefully a general precedent.
REMIT without prejudice.
========================================================================